NJDEP targets spring for PFOS, PFOA regulations

Kyle Bagenstose @KyleBagenstose

Tuesday

Jan 22, 2019 at 11:20 AMJan 22, 2019 at 12:22 PM

The NJDEP says it is now targeting spring to formally propose low limit for PFAS in drinking water. But it could take an additional year for them to take effect, and environmental groups and water utilities are raising concerns.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is targeting this spring to make a decision on whether it will add a pair of toxic chemicals to its list of regulated substances in drinking water, employees said at a recent public input meeting.

The chemicals, PFOS and PFOA, are part of a class called perfluorinated compounds, which have gained nationwide attention in recent years due to their presence in a variety of products, ranging from nonstick pans to clothing, food packaging and firefighting foams. Studies have linked the chemicals to numerous health effects, including some cancers, although their impacts on the immune system and child development are believed to occur at the lowest exposure levels.

New Jersey, which uses a team of scientists to study chemical risks, is one of the leading states nationwide in moving to regulate the perfluorinated compound family, also referred to as PFAS. Last September, the DEP formally regulated sister chemical PFNA, setting a first-of-its-kind limit for the chemical in drinking water. Thousands of water utilities across the state will begin sampling for PFNA this year, and filtration will be required anywhere it is found above 13 parts per trillion (ppt).

New Jersey's toxicologists already recommended a PFOA limit of 14 ppt in March 2017, which was accepted by its commissioner in November 2017. A 13 ppt PFOS limit was recommended in June and accepted last fall. But in order to become regulations, the limits would have to be formally proposed in the state register, which initiates a public comment period before becoming officially adopted.

When that process might begin had been an open question until NJDEP officials committed to a date at Friday's meeting.

“We are moving on an expeditious schedule to put this rule into place, and we do anticipate having something out there in spring,” said Kristin Tedesco, an environmental engineer with the DEP's Safe Drinking Water Program.

The Friday meeting was defined as a “stakeholder” session, allowing representatives from water utilities, testing labs and environmental groups to offer comment or criticism on the proposed regulations. Representatives of nonprofit groups Natural Resources Defense Council and the Delaware Riverkeeper Network both said they felt the proposal process was taking too long.

“We feel that far too much time has passed … We've lost a lot of time in protecting people's health,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the Riverkeepers.

Tedesco admitted NJDEP staff at the meeting “can't answer to all of the delays.” She ascribed part of long layover between the 2017 recommendations and this month's meeting to the department being rusty. The program that recommends new water regulations was sidelined for about four years during former Gov. Chris Christie's administration before it began meeting again in 2014.

“We hadn't done a rule in so many years,” Tedesco said. “There are decisions and there's also a lot of discussion that goes into rulemaking.”

Even if formally proposed this spring, it could be some time until the PFOS and PFOA limits are formally adopted. The proposal initiates a 60-day comment period, and then NJDEP commissioner Catherine McCabe would have one year to decide whether or not to institute the regulations, meaning they would not be in place until spring 2020. The department could then choose to give water authorities additional time to begin sampling for the chemicals, as was done for PFNA.

Should the PFOS and PFOA regulations be adopted, there likely will be implications for numerous contaminated sites across New Jersey. There currently are no state or federal standards for PFAS beyond New Jersey's PFNA regulation, meaning there is little to legally compel polluters to take robust action. Officials said Friday they had developed an initial list of 58 sites where PFAS pollution could be occurring, although the list was not made public.

This news organization has previously reported on widespread environmental contamination from the use of firefighting foams at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Impacts to drinking water supplies appear to have been limited so far, although that could change with new regulations. The military currently is using a 70-ppt limit recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency for the chemicals, meaning the new regulations would be up to five times lower.

DEP officials said Friday that if made into law, the regulations also would add PFOS and PFOA to the state's list of hazardous substances, as well as create groundwater standards matching the drinking water limits. Interim groundwater standards of 10 ppt for PFOS and PFOA could also take effect earlier; DEP proposed the interim standards last week. That initiated a 30-day comment period, after which McCabe could adopt them at any time.

Larry Hajna, a DEP spokesman, previously said the military would have to abide by the state limits.

“Upon adoption of the rule and implementation of any phase-in periods, federal military installations will be required to treat water to the state (drinking water limit),” Hajna said.

NJDEP officials said Friday they were petitioning EPA's regional office in New York City to also require the military to abide by the interim groundwater standards if adopted.

Water industry professionals at the meeting raised some concerns over the proposal, with many questioning whether the state's labs had the capacity and know-how to correctly test for PFAS. Those representing laboratories at the meeting assured that they were properly equipped.

Anthony Palombi, water plant manager with the Atlantic City water authority, raised additional concerns. The utility's water wells are located on the Atlantic City International Airport property, which is owned by the Federal Aviation Administration and has long served as a base for various military branches.

Palombi said the utility would have to spend in excess of $22 million to meet the new regulations if they take effect, and was concerned the federal government wouldn't be made to pay.

“How do I pass that onto my ratepayers, for something that has for the longest time, been a debate between the federal government and the state government?" Palombi said. “We cannot get funded.”

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.

Follow Us

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Burlington County Times ~ 116 Burrs Rd., Suite B, Westampton, NJ 08060 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service